23 comments

7.Let’s see, this is an interesting contrast. Mr Leiter thinks “conservatives are getting dumber” … why? Well, because they don’t trust the scientific academy as much as liberals. And at the same time, in another corner, a study of 53 landmark papers found 47 with falsified/non-reproducible results. So, perhaps the dumb is on the other side of the aisle.

It would be, if conservatives had their own scientific academy who, say, produced a problem rate of 45 or less issues per 53 landmark papers. But they have no such entity that produces anything that could be called a ‘landmark’ anymore and, of course, and when was the last time you heard a conservative entity really seriously analyze itself for errors? When was the last time Mark announced here he had discovered some errors in his reasoning?

This leads to two possible hypothesis.

1. Conservatives are infallible and incapable of error therefore it would be a waste of effort for them to even spend a tiny bit of energy on self-reflection.

2. Conservatives believe because they never find errors as they never look for errors, they must have an error rate of 0%.

I’m willing to entertain evidence and reasoning pro and con on both possibilities. But I’m inclined to bet on #2 and if #2 is true then that’s a powerful reason to think conservatives are dumb.

As for the claim that they are ‘getting dumber’…..well you may have a zero bound problem there.

3.So, this is the first account of events … are we all on the same page now? Or are other going off another account of events?

Sounds like a lot of speculation there. How does he know Martin went back to confront Zimmerman? If Martin first asked Zimmerman why he was following him why would Zimmerman not say he was neighborhood watch and instead falsely claim he wasn’t following him? How does the writer know Martin had time to ‘run’ to his girlfriend’s house (and let’s not pretend race isn’t an issue here, young black men know being seen running in public, esp. at night, is very problematic, Martin might have been in quite a bind having to decide should he run to get away from the man following him versus possibly drawing attention to himself by being seen as a ‘running black guy in a hoodie’).

More problematically, if Zimmerman was confronted and asked why he was following and then denied it, well then why continue to follow? Since he didn’t use that opportunity to identify himself as neighborhood watch, as having called law enforcement, as being an armed man but not one who intended any wrongdoing, why continue to follow? Doing so would mean a charge of manslaughter IMO. Whether he intended so or not, that would be baiting a fight and since he knew he was armed it would recklessly endanger the kids life to bait a fight with him.

Figuring out what someone is saying on an audio tape can be tricky business. If audio experts could have erred initially and heard ‘fucking cold’ as ‘fucking coon(s)’ the opposite could just as likely be the case….people who want Zimmerman to be vindicated may be hearing ‘cold’. Likewise I’m still waiting for evidence that Zimmerman suffered any serious injuries. You previous cited a blogger who claimed a witness saw him in bandages and his brother claims he had a broken nose. Yet standard operating procedure for cops would not be to remove bandages before they got someone into the police station. Likewise a broken nose would almost certainly require cops to bring the person to the hospital (if nothing else, that protocol would protect the police force from a claim that his nose was broken from getting a beating at headquarters)

Boonton,
On #7, you’re not making sense. The point isn’t that the scientists are liberal or not. They are what they are. Liberals trust them. Conservative trust in their results has been (apparently) dropping. Their accuracy of late indicates this is not stupid, but a sensible thing to do.

On #3, I don’t exactly see an alternate account. And you still think waterboarding isn’t torture I see. Interesting how flexible you are on that. I don’t box, and have not been in fist fights in my adult life, I suspect a hard sock on the nose that doesn’t break my nose to those like me might lead me to suggest “my gnose is broken” even if it was just suffering a nosebleed which subsides in time.

On #7, you’re not making sense. The point isn’t that the scientists are liberal or not. They are what they are. Liberals trust them. Conservative trust in their results has been (apparently) dropping. Their accuracy of late indicates this is not stupid, but a sensible thing to do.

You seem to have two misunderstandings here.

1. Finding issues in 45 out of 53 landmark papers does not mean that 45 out of 53 landmarks are wrong. One would have to ask the added question of should 45 out of 53 landmarks be overturned? To do this one has to examine the nature of the false data or ‘non-reproducible results’ (I’m wondering what’s up with lumping the two together, just because a result can’t be reproduced doesn’t mean it was a lie?). Measurement problems, both due to the limitations of technology and the limitations of human goodness have always been an issue for science. Yet the fact that you sit here blogging tells us that despite those problems it seems to be quite reliable in many respects.

2. An institution that would produce a study like the one you cited is actually quite trustworthy. Institutions do not often investigate themselves honestly so that it would undertake a highly critical examination of itself is pretty important. Again what conservative institutions have done anything like that? When Fox News invites disgraced has beens like Dick Morris to ‘analyze’ the Obama administration, for example, do they ever present a running tally of his last 5 years of on air predictions with a percentage of ones that turned out true or false?

On #3, I don’t exactly see an alternate account.

Errrr, so you admit then that the other side is being pretty responsible. Since we only have snippets of facts it’s not easy to come up with a narrative that is not highly speculative. Since you see no alternative then the only people doing this would be from the right. That makes sense.

In fact, that is quite consistent with what I and others have said. I think the guy should be arrested and charged. I’m perfectly willing to accept that he may ultimately end up being totally innocent. Perhaps the kid did charge at him thinking he was some type of mugger and the guy reacted quickly and ended up shooting him making it a tragic misunderstanding but one where he is innocent. I think at this point it is undeniable that the initial ‘investigation’ was sloppy and too quick to leap to the conclusion that nothing should be done with the killing of a 16 yr old boy.

And you still think waterboarding isn’t torture I see. Interesting how flexible you are on that. I don’t box, and have not been in fist fights in my adult life, I suspect a hard sock on the nose that doesn’t break my nose to those like me might lead me to suggest “my gnose is broken” even if it was just suffering a nosebleed which subsides in time.

I don’t follow your connection to waterboarding. You seem to be saying that Zimmerman may be inexperienced and might have mistaken a sore or slighly bloodied nose with a broken nose. That’s fine but you’d figure days to weeks later there would have been ample time for him to have realized his nose wasn’t broken. Likewise if he was saying to the cops that night that he thought his nose was broken you’d think they would either bring him to the hospital or, having some first aid training, would have advised him it was a minor bleed. (Actually I think the police protocol would be to call paramedics and let them evaluate whether the hospital was necessary regardless of what they think).

I think with waterboarding you’re trying to say that I’m judging that a broken nose doesn’t merit a self defense claim. I never said that. A claim of self defense has nothing to do with your injuries being severe, modest or non-existent.

Finding issues in 45 out of 53 landmark papers does not mean that 45 out of 53 landmarks are wrong.

I read “not able to reproduce the experimental results” as more serious than “finding issue”.

Again what conservative institutions have done anything like that? When Fox News invites disgraced has beens like Dick Morris to ‘analyze’ the Obama administration, for example, do they ever present a running tally of his last 5 years of on air predictions with a percentage of ones that turned out true or false?

Seriously, you put “pundit accuracy” on par with experimental claims in landmark papers? I think you are less trusting of scientific results than any conservative being considered.

Errrr, so you admit then that the other side is being pretty responsible

What I mean is that you do not cite a timeline that differs. You don’t.

In fact, that is quite consistent with what I and others have said. I think the guy should be arrested and charged.

Why? Because governments these days have infinite quantities of time and money? The police, right or wrong and black and white, on the scene decided it wasn’t worth their time. You have a kid, recently charged and involved in aggression (punching a bus driver, bragging about about getting into prostitution and drugs et al, who is shot and the shooter claims he was defending himself in an assault/battery charge. The police likely have had interactions lately with both involved and their (and the DAs?) judgement is that no charge is needed. It becomes a national kerfuffle because the mainstream media doctors audio, video, and photo evidence to make it look like an egregious shooting. Elect a new DA if you think he should be charged, but it seems to me inner city courts are stretched now without outsiders bowing to mainstream falsified propaganda.

That’s fine but you’d figure days to weeks later there would have been ample time for him to have realized his nose wasn’t broken.

Cite? Has he claimed “weeks later” that his nose was fractured?

Likewise if he was saying to the cops that night that he thought his nose was broken you’d think they would either bring him to the hospital or, having some first aid training, would have advised him it was a minor bleed.

And no, you’d not think that. If the cops had more experience with broken gnoses they might just glance at it and tell him, “No it ain’t broke, just grin and bear it.”

(Actually I think the police protocol would be to call paramedics and let them evaluate whether the hospital was necessary regardless of what they think).

I see. Perhaps there are streets where police with casual violence more commonly than you’d want to call medic every time some stiff gets an boo-boo.

I think with waterboarding you’re trying to say that I’m judging that a broken nose doesn’t merit a self defense claim.

No. I’m thinking your saying he’s not injured because there was no fracture. He wasn’t hit. He’s lying because (like waterboarding) there is little to no physical evidence of damage afterwards.

Seriously, you put “pundit accuracy” on par with experimental claims in landmark papers? I think you are less trusting of scientific results than any conservative being considered.

Why does your mind balk at putting them on the same level? Because you expect much more accuracy from scientific results. Why do you do so? Because scientific institutions put a high value on accuracy, hence they bother to do a study of the accuracy of previous studies. Pundits as well as the right in general do not value accuracy, hence they don’t even care to try to audit their own ideas to see if there are errors, flaws, or mistakes.

I read “not able to reproduce the experimental results” as more serious than “finding issue”.

Accuracy has always been a difficult ideal to obtain. Ever read up on Babbage and his plan for a mechanical computer? Back then tables of logs were essential for accurate calculation but the tables had to be worked out by hand. Publishers hired people to do the calculations at home but to protect against error they had three different people calculating the same tables. This was a great way to catch errors except when the calculators got together and cut their work by 1/3 by having each person do only 1/3 of the table and then copying the answers the other two got.

Despite all of this, math and science has done a remarkably good job so before I’d so recklessly decide not to trust 53 landmark papers’ conclusions, I’d want to see an analysis of what degree the false data actually impacts the conclusion.

What I mean is that you do not cite a timeline that differs. You don’t.

I don’t have too. If you are seen on a video tape at 1 PM buying a Shamrock shake at McDonald’s and at 2 PM getting gas at a gas station that is two datapoints. If JA makes up a story about you having sex with a street prostitute from 1:10 PM – 1:45PM, I don’t have to present an alternative timeline to note that he is just making stuff up to fill in the time gap with no evidence at all other than his imagination.

Why? Because governments these days have infinite quantities of time and money? The police, right or wrong and black and white, on the scene decided it wasn’t worth their time.

See this is where the right falters with racism. In NYC there’s an interesting policy called ‘stop and frisk’….basically it means that in certain areas the cops ‘stop and frisk’ anyone they deem suspect. They say this policy gets illegal guns off the streets and intimidates people like gang members from walking around packing weapons. On the other side it results in a huge amount of arrests for pot. Something like 80% of NYC’s pot smokers are white but 80% of the arrests for pot are black. Why? Well in these neighborhoods many black men get ‘stopped and frisked’ like once a month or more. If you question the cops they will say they ‘fit the description’ of some suspect. Say the cops are right, look at it from the point of view of the civilians, though. Actually look at it from the point of view of some white, Tea Party, NRA type from the midwest. Imagine the BATF randomly stopping some guys in the midwest and subjecting them to patdowns about once per month! You’d probably end up with an armed insurrection on your hands.

So given this environment, it’s asking quite a lot to bite at the idea of ‘wasn’t worth their time’ and ‘infinite quantities of time and money’. Quite a few blacks are probably wondering if there’s time and money for stop and frisk and ‘driving while black’ why exactly is there no time and money for what appears to be an unjustified shooting of a 16 yr old boy. Your response seems to be that the boy was bad and because the media initially got some factoids wrong (but then the right has gotten major facts wrong too….like the idea that because he is half hispanic he can’t be racist against blacks) you can overlook manslaughter of a minor in favor of fighting against the threat of the Buffet rule or against the threat of a $600 insurance mandate. Really if you just came out and said you don’t think much of the kid’s life because he doesn’t look like you or anyone you care about you’d at least get some respect for honesty rather than playing this pathetic game of ‘gotcha’.

BTW, will you judge yourself by the same standards? Where is your support for asserting that Martin was suspended for punching a bus driver? It’s already been documented that a doctored photo has been circulating on Facebook falsely showing Martin superimposed over someone striking a gangster pose.

So let’s have it, since you deem it ok to toss Martin’s life aside because NBC got some reporting wrong, can we toss you aside if you fail to produce a credible public record of Martin ever punching a bus driver?

Despite all of this, math and science has done a remarkably good job so before I’d so recklessly decide not to trust 53 landmark papers’ conclusions, I’d want to see an analysis of what degree the false data actually impacts the conclusion.

I agree. It’s just interesting I found it interesting to see the two posts on the same day.

In NYC there’s an interesting policy called ‘stop and frisk’….basically it means that in certain areas the cops ‘stop and frisk’ anyone they deem suspect.

cite?

Imagine the BATF randomly stopping some guys in the midwest and subjecting them to patdowns about once per month! You’d probably end up with an armed insurrection on your hands.

So given this environment, it’s asking quite a lot to bite at the idea of ‘wasn’t worth their time’ and ‘infinite quantities of time and money’.

I don’t have the epistemic insight into law enforcement to comment intelligently about allocation of resources with (as you noted) the last three decades of decreasing crime. Perhaps their money/time is working but you don’t understand why, i.e., not doing “stop and frisk” leads to other unrelated problems like rampant gang violence.

Your response seems to be that the boy was bad and because the media initially got some factoids wrong …

Oh!!!! STOP THAT! They didn’t by any stretch “get things wrong”. They actively falsified transcripts, photos and documents. That’s not an “error” its intentional malpractice.

Where is your support for asserting that Martin was suspended for punching a bus driver?

Uhm, I didn’t assert that he was suspended. There are reports that he twittered that he did, that’s all. I believe the drug/gang/prostitution claims were also reported as from his twitter record.

(but then the right has gotten major facts wrong too .. like the idea that because he is half hispanic he can’t be racist against blacks)

Are you asserting the opposite, that because he is Hispanic he is racist? Or just that he is racist? Cite? My default would be that people aren’t racist. You apparently default to people being racist.

Really if you just came out and said you don’t think much of the kid’s life because he doesn’t look like you or anyone you care about you’d at least get some respect for honesty rather than playing this pathetic game of ‘gotcha’.

Oh, gosh … now the “I’m a racist” charge. What? Are you going to make Nazi comparisons next? Are you having a bad day? What’s going on?

So let’s have it, since you deem it ok to toss Martin’s life aside because NBC got some reporting wrong, can we toss you aside if you fail to produce a credible public record of Martin ever punching a bus driver?

Let’s see. NBC, ABC and other news networks make a bunch of stuff up. (NOT WRONG!!!! … it’s not “an error” it’s intentional fabrication and falsification). Other suggestions are made “by the right” which leads you to the Dan Rather conclusion “well, yes, we made it all up, but it’s right dammitall.”

Look. I don’t know at all what happened between Mr Martin and Mr Zimmerman, but the police didn’t see fit to charge him. Why? As I noted, it seems they’d a history with the latter and it is coming out that there are some reasons to think that likely the former as well. As noted above, as a default I’d trust the cops. You’re a liberal. As a default you don’t trust the pigs cops. It’s not racism. It’s authority and law and order and our relationship to same.

Smokers’ problem is not the gov’t but society (my wife smokes). Smoking is getting ‘phased out’ by society and as a result people who don’t smoke are getting hit from all corners of society. The gov’t is the least of their problems.

But then you’re missing the point. As annoying as it might be to be told you can’t smoke in this or that place, it’s still clear rules that you have to follow to avoid any issues. Being randomly stopped for walking, sometimes with guns on you, and then having your body searched including genitle patdown is a rather serious infringement of basic liberty. You seem oblivious to this fact while you’re sympathetic to almost any other liberty claim (such as body scanners in airports). A double standard perhaps?

I don’t have the epistemic insight into law enforcement to comment intelligently about allocation of resources with (as you noted) the last three decades of decreasing crime.

Ahhh but you hold enough insight to deem it not worth the effort to go beyond the initial call to drop the matter by the cops.

Oh!!!! STOP THAT! They didn’t by any stretch “get things wrong”. They actively falsified transcripts, photos and documents. That’s not an “error” its intentional malpractice. </I.

They did? Photos and documents were falsified exactly? In the right wing blogomediaphere the forgeries are well documented. Where are they in the MSM?

Uhm, I didn’t assert that he was suspended. There are reports that he twittered that he did, that’s all. I believe the drug/gang/prostitution claims were also reported as from his twitter record.

So let’s see, he was suspended for punching a bus driver, but the only actual public record of this is a claim made about a twitter feed? No police report? No charges filed? No actual bus driver to speak to the media about getting punched out by the kid?

Oh, gosh … now the “I’m a racist” charge. What? Are you going to make Nazi comparisons next? Are you having a bad day? What’s going on?

Didn’t say that, but I do think you’re biased and what’s worse is you’re not even aware of your bias here.

Let me ask you, am I doing anything to you here you don’t do to the MSM when you accuse them of bias?

I wasn’t even thinking of the restrictions on where/when you can smoke, but the high cost imposed by the state on tobacco products.

Ahhh but you hold enough insight to deem it not worth the effort to go beyond the initial call to drop the matter by the cops.

No. That’s not what I said. I said that conservatives tend to trust the cops … and in the light of evidence that this issue is largely a “big national affair/kerfuffle” because of media falsification and fabrication of evidence that I’d be inclined to trust the decision of the police. Do you know if the race of the cops who came to the site? Would it change your opinion if they were Black? If so, why?

So let’s see, he was suspended for punching a bus driver, but the only actual public record of this is a claim made about a twitter feed?

I repeat. I never said he was suspended. You did. I never did. Why are you accusing me of making that claim. I said that there are reports that he bragged on twitter of punching a bus driver. This is in fact true, there are reports of this.

When you write:

Didn’t say that, but I do think you’re biased and what’s worse is you’re not even aware of your bias here.

I think you did. When you write …

Really if you just came out and said you don’t think much of the kid’s life because he doesn’t look like you or anyone you care about you’d at least get some respect for honesty rather than playing this pathetic game of ‘gotcha’.

It seems to me the only way to interpret that is that if I was “being honest” I’d admit that I’m a racist.

Let me ask you, am I doing anything to you here you don’t do to the MSM when you accuse them of bias?

I have not falsified any reports. I have not doctored transcripts. And if you look at the top of my blog “… from right of center” … I make my personal biases quite clear. Blogging is more like editorializing, and I’ve made my political bias clear up front. I don’t see CNN/NBC/ABC doing that. Can you cite their editorial department making clear their political biases?

I repeat. I never said he was suspended. You did. I never did. Why are you accusing me of making that claim. I said that there are reports that he bragged on twitter of punching a bus driver. This is in fact true, there are reports of this.

What exactly is true? That he claimed to have punched a bus driver on his Twitter account or that there were *reports* he claimed to have punched a bus driver?

I have not falsified any reports. I have not doctored transcripts. And if you look at the top of my blog “… from right of center” … I make my personal biases quite clear. Blogging is more like editorializing, and I’ve made my political bias clear up front. I don’t see CNN/NBC/ABC doing that.

The question of whether you’re clear or not about your biases has nothing to do with what biases you have and how they effect your ability to get at the truth.

And you haven’t really addressed the point about bias. No doubt you would hold that many in the MSM may be biased without being aware of their bias. Yet you would hold this is impossible for you. Your only bias is politics and that you helpfully disclose to us ahead of time. Maybe but if you can accuse others of holding hidden biases why should you be exempt? What you think your intellect is some exceptional example of humanity that stands above the confusions, biases, and other distortions that afflict lesser mortals?

Now you may want to claim that having a racial bias means you’re a racist therefore I can’t accuse you of one without the other. I would quibble with that and say a racist would have to go a bit more and entail some type of intellectual acceptance of superiority or inferiority based on race.

Let me use a hypothetical. I suspect as a heterosexual male you find young, slender women attractive. If I could somehow attach some type of monitor to your eyeball, I suspect it would reveal your eyes focus on such women when, say, walking down a crowded street. Likewise those who don’t fit that profile will only get a marginal focus by your eyes. I suspect you may fully admit to this as well as accept the fact that your body may do this without you even being consciously aware of it.

Yet this bias, IMO, wouldn’t amount to sexism unless you take it to another level. Instead of simply accepting it as a feature of your individual makeup you go beyond and turn it into an actual belief that young slender women are better than other types of people by virtue of being young slender women and therefore poor treatment of, say, fat women or old women is merited and ok. Likewise I would say many people (of all races) have all types of racial biases without being racists.

As for doctoring, I’m still waiting on your evidence. The only example I’m aware of isn’t doctoring but NBC’s editing of the 9/11 call to exclude the operator asking him the race of the person he was following (but the story itself was about Zimmerman’s multiple 9/11 calls all entailing a black person he was suspect of).

Hold it. You didn’t know reports were falsified. Consider this. How is that not falsification? It’s not “an error” it’s deliberate.

thought you’d cite this one… Granted it shouldn’t have been edited that way, but sound clips are edited all the time and it was in context of a compilation of Zimmerman calls all of which involve him finding black persons suspect.

Now your claim was:

“NBC, ABC and other news networks make a bunch of stuff up. ”

And

“It becomes a national kerfuffle because the mainstream media doctors audio, video, and photo evidence to make it look like an egregious shooting”

So 3 charges of doctoring on your part, audio, video and photo.

And

“You have a kid, recently charged and involved in aggression (punching a bus driver, bragging about about getting into prostitution and drugs et al,….”

Ohhh wait, you said:

“I repeat. I never said he was suspended. You did. I never did. Why are you accusing me of making that claim. I said that there are reports that he bragged on twitter of punching a bus driver. ”

I think we should christen this Mark’s Massive Kerfuffle (MMK). You seem to be making broad charges yet can’t back them up when challenged and then forgetting you made them.

Given that you cite the so-called Media Kerfuffle as evidence of media bias why can we not cite MMK as evidence of your bias? Because you have instructed us that you’ll notify us first of any biases you might have? Hmmmm…..Interesting.

Boonton,
Let’s see, so dropping the “he’s black” response from a unsolicited comment from Mr Zimmerman to a response from a request is “editing is done all the time” … gotcha. Did you see the edits to the Romney speeches? Here I’ll copy it for you. Here’s the ABC “edit”

MARTIN BASHIR, host: Krystal, I want to play you a clip [from] just a few moments ago. It’s Mitt Romney taking questions at a campaign event. Listen to this.

BRET HATCH: In the Mormon book it says there were a blackness cast upon all the children of Canaan–

MITT ROMNEY: I’m sorry. We ‘re just not going to have a discussion about religion.

BASHIR: Can I ask you how it is that people are allowed to impugn the president’s religion, but when Mitt Romney faces a polite question on the contents of his faith, he refuses to answer?

Let’s fill that out a bit and see if anything important was missed. Bashir/Romney

BRET HATCH: In the Mormon book it says there were a blackness cast upon all the children —
MITT ROMNEY: I’m sorry, we’re just not going to have a discussion about religion in my view, but if you have a question, I’ll be happy to answer your question.”
HATCH: I guess my question is, do you believe it’s a sin for a white man to marry and procreate with a black?”
ROMNEY: No. Next question.

So, is Mr Bashir correctly and fairly representing the conversation?

I chose one of the items, not all three, to support. Apparently, you think that I didn’t support the others because I can’t not because of time constraints. Let’s see, Mr Martin’s photos, displayed on the networks and web show a dewy eyed 14 y/old, not a 6′ 2″ (if I recall correctly) tattooed person, out sizing and outweighing Mr Zimmerman significantly, the two photos shown side by side where a much younger Martin and police line-up photos of Mr Zimmerman, interesting comaprison, eh? Completely on the up and up by unbiased journalists. Photos and video of Mr Zimmerman arriving at the police station, for which the networks are retracting and apologizing for were doctored to not show his injuries.

You for instance (I think) insisted that Mr Zimmerman “be arrested”. Uhm, apparently he was, if “arrested” means being brought to the police station in handcuffs.

And to compare with that … you offer a slate blog post offering that some right wing blogs have doctored photos.

“You have a kid, recently charged and involved in aggression (punching a bus driver, bragging about about getting into prostitution and drugs et al,….”

Yes. And I claimed suspension (which you repeated several times) where? Again. Where did I say he was suspended?

Let’s see, so dropping the “he’s black” response from a unsolicited comment from Mr Zimmerman to a response from a request is “editing is done all the time” … gotcha.

Actually yes it is. It’s quite common. Say an outlet is doing a TV story about Obama attacking Romney. It would not raise an eyebrow for it to show in the span of 30 seconds five different snippets of Obama making critical statements of Romney.

Now if you went to those 5 speeches and actually read or watched the entire transcript you may discover out of an out of total combined speaking of over an hour or two only 5 things were said about Romney amounting to maybe only 30 seconds with the rest of the time devoted to other topics, but its accepted that if you’re going to do a story about Obama attacks on Romney, you show just the attacks. It is, after all, exceptional for a TV report to be more than 5 minutes so a huge amount of material is left on the cutting room floor all the time. You are, of course, missing the context of the actual speeches but you are getting the 5 attacks Obama made on Romney….which is more important is, of course, debateable.

Now this story was about Zimmerman making numerous 911 calls over black people he deemed suspect. So yes playing audio clips of his different calls about blacks would be standard practice. In this particular case it was a really bad call to edit out the operator’s question about the guy’s race because it makes Zimmerman appear to be a nut who just calls 911 whenever he sees a black person walking around, but it’s not a doctoring of the tape as you alleged and it doesn’t refute the actual story that Zimmerman has a history of calling 911 on black people walking around. That’s the fact, now what that might mean remains to be seen.

So, is Mr Bashir correctly and fairly representing the conversation?

Since you’ve been asked several times now to present support for your claims of doctored audio, pictures and video, I’m not sure why you’re changing the subject but the answer to your question is its off topic and no Bashir is not being unfair.

Bashir’s criticism was that Romney refuses to answer questions about his faith while others criticize Obama’s religion as well as his imagined religion with inpunity. Romney did in fact refuse to address the polite question about his faith, which as you surely know held blacks to be 2nd class humans until the late 1970’s. Granted he answered a tiny bit of the the question about whether he considered interracial marriage a sin but the jist of his answer was “I’m not here to talk about my religion”. Playing the entire clip, which BTW NPR did, doesn’t alter that meaning. As to whether or not Romney should answer detailed questions about his faith and race…well that’s an editorial question and didn’t you just say editorialists are by definition biased and that’s ok?

I chose one of the items, not all three, to support. Apparently, you think that I didn’t support the others because I can’t not because of time constraints. Let’s see, Mr Martin’s photos, displayed on the networks and web show a dewy eyed 14 y/old, not a 6′ 2″ (if I recall correctly) tattooed person, out sizing and outweighing Mr Zimmerman significantly, the two photos shown side by side where a much younger Martin and police line-up photos of Mr Zimmerman, interesting comaprison, eh?

OK so you lied when you said the pictures were doctored. You’re saying that the pictures they had were not fair because they might have represented a younger Martin. But where exactly do you get pictures of the kid as he was when he got shot? Unless the medical examiner was willing to leak pictures of the dead body (which would probably be illegal and rarely happens, you will have a hard time finding, for example, pictures of Casey Anthony’s skeletal remains) you’re out of luck if the guy didn’t bother to update his facebook profile or he bulked up a lot since his last yearbook photo.

Speaking of which, why the need to doctor pics on the right, which I have documented here, if the fellow really was a monsterous 7 foot, muscle bound, ganster tattoed hulk like character? And where exactly are the photos the media should have shown? The more updated and realistic ones? If they don’t exist it’s standard practice for a visual medium to show the most recent pic they can get a hold of.

Photos and video of Mr Zimmerman arriving at the police station, for which the networks are retracting and apologizing for were doctored to not show his injuries

Evidence please? The media showed the raw footage which showed no clear injuries. Possible injuries might be visible when the tape is enhanced, which the media itself had done and showed. What is there that is doctored? Are you saying he walked into the police station gushing blood with flaps of scalp hanging from him but the media employed cgi specialists to make it look like he was fine? Unless you have evidence of that you have still failed to support your charges. The MMK remains a serious problem for you.

Yes. And I claimed suspension (which you repeated several times) where? Again. Where did I say he was suspended?

Fair point, you falsely claimed he punched a bus driver…which you have yet to back up…..but somehow this mysterious charge which you can’t support with a month of Googling activity was supposedly known to the cops that night and helped justify letting Zimmerman go.

OK. So some right wing blogs are showing a doctored photo. I didn’t link or comment on them, or for that matter even see them. What’s your point?

so far only your side seems to have doctored anything. That plus outrageously false statements which you can’t claim ignorance of (such as the claim that Zimmerman can’t be racist because he isn’t white….which in itself is kind of odd because ‘hispanic’ is not a skin color but an adjective denoting being from an ethnic group that speaks Spanish). Other than that you’re fine.

Boonton,
I’m curious, in light of NBC firing the producer who sanctioned editing the tapes, are you still of the opinion that this is business as usual?

Yes, you’ve asked for links to audio, video and photo … I’ve suggested we limit to one of these for time considerations … and supplied doctored audio.

Question, when you edit audio .. is the point to make the segment shorter or to alter the message? Hmmm? If the former, that’s OK and a likely a good thing. If the latter, that’s not. That’s what happened. Look, if you’re pushing a message that Mr Zimmerman is racist then having him offer unsolicited the race of the guy he was reporting on the 911 call then that supports your claim and makes it an audio clip which warrants sharing, if he is responding to a query by the operator then there is no point in presenting the audio which was the case.

Fair point, you falsely claimed he punched a bus driver…which you have yet to back up

Your right. That was incorrect. The correct statement is that it was reported that he claimed to have punched a bus driver. “this mysterious charge which you can’t support with a month of Googling activity” ??? huh?

In this particular case it was a really bad call to edit out the operator’s question about the guy’s race because it makes Zimmerman appear to be a nut who just calls 911 whenever he sees a black person walking around, but it’s not a doctoring of the tape as you alleged and it doesn’t refute the actual story that Zimmerman has a history of calling 911 on black people walking around. That’s the fact, now what that might mean remains to be seen.Well, depends on what the story is about. If the story is about how its “nuts to be on a neighborhood watch group” then that’s one thing, i.e., “makes frequent calls to 911″ seems to be what you do if you’re on neighborhood watch. If the story is about how Mr Zimmerman is a racist (even that’s about as accurate as being on neighborhood watch=nuts), then it’s helpful to edit as given as it makes you case even if you don’t have one.

Who is Casey Anthony? Why should I know that name (hint: I don’t).

if the fellow really was a monsterous 7 foot, muscle bound, ganster tattoed hulk like character?

I’m curious, in light of NBC firing the producer who sanctioned editing the tapes, are you still of the opinion that this is business as usual?

You’re asking is it business as usual to drastically edit audio tapes for news stories? Certainly you can’t be serious about that. The medium of our culture understands the concept of a ‘clip’ and anyone who watches even a little bit of modern media understands the difference between what clips show/promise and actually consuming the entire original media. Now given the intensity of the emotions around this case, I would guess NBC was right to fire an editor who botched a clipping job but how that justifies your claim of ‘doctored’ audio, visual and pictures I’m still at a loss.

I’ve suggested we limit to one of these for time considerations … and supplied doctored audio.

The time to have done that was when you recklessly made the charges. If you now find you can’t justify your original statement then admit your error.

Question, when you edit audio .. is the point to make the segment shorter or to alter the message?

What is the message though? Consider my hypothetical news story about Obama attacking Romney. Are the 5 attacks clipped the message of the much longer speeches they are taken from? Most likely not, most likely those longer speeches are basically the same as plenty of other speeches he gives all the time. The message of the news story though, is to focus on the attacks on Romney. As such all that’s relevant is to focus in on the anti-Romney statements he made….even though they are but a tiny portion of a much longer speech. This does create a bit of a metaphysical question. Is this the reporter’s message or Obama? It is Obama’s words, after all, but then so are all the other words. On the other hand a 5 minute story is only going to grab a tiny fraction of Obama’s words no matter what and if adding Romney attacks to boilerplate speeches is something new then that is a story.

Look, if you’re pushing a message that Mr Zimmerman is racist then having him offer unsolicited the race of the guy he was reporting on the 911 call then that supports your claim and makes it an audio clip which warrants sharing, if he is responding to a query by the operator then there is no point in presenting the audio which was the case.

Well consider the possibility that Zimmerman has a racial hang up which basically causes him to suspect just about any black person of being a criminal (unless the person is something like a uniformed cop, a nun, a baby etc.). As a result he is constantly calling 911 whenever he sees black people he doesn’t know (but doesn’t do the same with other types of people). The question of whether or not he offered the person’s race is irrelevant, the question is what is the nature of the population of 911 calls he made. If in fact he does jump to conclusions whenever black people are involved, that goes to whether his judgement is reliable and that has nothing to do with whether or not he waits for the operator to ask about race or offers it up without being asked. The story is does Zimmerman jump to conclusions. In that respect the clip is fair evidence that he might. The editing job was bad, though, because it presented a false story, that Zimmerman blantly said something along the lines of “this might be the perp whose been robbing us because he’s black”.

Now consider an alternative. Suppose Zimmerman had made twenty 911 calls in the past and always offered the person’s race without being asked. Of those 20 calls, all turned out to be duds but there were many different races. That would seem to cut against the racism hypothesis but would support the hypothesis that Zimmerman was too high strung in deciding who merited to be suspect. If the report refused to inform viewers that Zimmerman had called 911 for people other than blacks, then I’d be more inclined to accept your harsh conclusion.

The correct statement is that it was reported that he claimed to have punched a bus driver. “this mysterious charge which you can’t support with a month of Googling activity” ??? huh?

well it’s also been reported that Elvis faked his death and is still alive. But reporting the report as fact, you have, by using your standards, ‘doctored’ evidence here.

As for the 2nd part, when confronting a story like this and evaluating people’s behavior you must examine not only the information known but when the information became known. Did the cops that night Google Martin and uncover obscure websites reporting that he had punched a bus driver and therefore conclude the kid had a possible history of violent assaults? Probably not therefore it cannot be entered as a defense of the decision not to charge Zimmerman that night.

To use an analogy, suppose you randomy pull out a gun and fire into a crowd of people killing a 22 yr old man. It’s later discovered that man was an obsessed stalker on his way to murder his ex-gf. You have no right to claim to be a hero unless you can show that you had acquired that information before you decided to shoot wildly into a crowd. If this info came to light only because your defense lawyer was examining the background of the victim, then you can’t claim to have used it in your decision to shoot.

Likewise if you want to discuss bias or doctoring or hiding of information as opposed to just trying to get at the truth of what happened that night, then you have to start mapping out now only what information we have but when and how we acquired it.

My mistake here, I mixed up Caylee Anthony with her mother Casey Anthony. Caylee was the little girl who went missing in Florida but her mom never reported her missing, her grandmother did. The mother provided a convoluted story about a babysitter who kidnapped the child but would kill her if she went to the police. After lots of running around, people started to suspect the mother…esp. after pics of her partying at a local bar surfaced shortly after the supposed kidnapping. They eventually arrested her and then they found a decomposed body that DNA confirmed was Casey. The mother was tried for murder but was aquitted (but got convicted of a much lesser charge around her bogus stories). You may have forgotten the case but it wasn’t that long ago and it did last quite a while, I think nearly a year. In fact I think you posted a comment or two about it. Casey’s parents stuck by their daughter even though it was/is almost impossible for them not to have doubts that she was responsible for their granddaughter’s death. The father tried to commit suicide at some point and then Casey’s defense attorny floated a theory of the case that involved him covering up Caylee’s death and having molested his daughter when she was young. Granted they didn’t want their daughter to go to jail for life but it must have been a horrible thing for them to experience.

POint is in regards to pictures you have no example of a doctored pic of Marvin from the MSM, only the right wing media. You may fairly say the ‘doe eyed’ pics of him were dramatically different from the way he looked that night but the media only has the pics that are available. The county is probaby not going to leak or release pictures of the body out of respect for the family and the investigation. It’s not the media’s fault that the only available pics are old ones and a visual medium demands images no matter what. If lots of current Zimmerman pics exist but little or no Martin pics, then the bias is not media but in the available information. If ‘more accurate’ pictures of Martin exist, then where are they? I suspect they don’t otherwise why would right-wingers have to resort to using doctored ones? Either more recent pics of Martin don’t look all that different than the ‘doe eyed’ pics of him available or there just aren’t any that have surfaced.

If the story is about how its “nuts to be on a neighborhood watch group” then that’s one thing, i.e., “makes frequent calls to 911″ seems to be what you do if you’re on neighborhood watch. If the story is about how Mr Zimmerman is a racist (even that’s about as accurate as being on neighborhood watch=nuts), then it’s helpful to edit as given as it makes you case even if you don’t have one.

I think you might be getting the point here, although I’m not sure why you’re tossing up such broad possibilities as “its nuts to be on(sic) a neighborhood watch group”. Certainly a story about a typical neighborhood watch group would most likely try to choose a less noteable example than Zimmerman to illustrate the typical watcher.

I think there’s two valid stories that might be built from the 911 calls.

1. Zimmerman calls 911 a lot. That isn’t what you ‘seem to do if you’re on a neighborhood watch’. I would suspect most neighborhood watchers go through many nights never calling 911. If that was one’s story, though, one might try to find out how many 911 calls came in from Zimmerman and how many came in from other members of this watch group.

2. Zimmerman jumps the gun with black people walking around his complex and calls 911 on them before the facts merit it. This may imply racism but doesn’t necessary require Zimmerman to be a racist. Here the relevant issue is how often Zimmerman calls 911 on blacks. Not how often he or others call 911. This would be actually a good candidate for clipping since the point is to illustrate not the merits of demerits of any one call but to present a collage of repeated behavior. In this story the fact that Zimmerman was asked for the race by the operator wasn’t very important. whether he volunteered it or was asked it doesn’t alter the fact that Zimmerman decided to call 911.

Now I’ll agree the editing job was bad because it presented an unjustufied counter-story and made that seem legitimate. By definition clipping a source is doing violence to the original text so clipping in a way that does not violently alter the original text’s meaning is a bit of an art, and like any art there’s going to be some people who are great at it and others who are horrible. The NBC editor was bad at it.

You’re asking is it business as usual to drastically edit audio tapes for news stories? Certainly you can’t be serious about that. The medium of our culture understands the concept of a ‘clip’ and anyone who watches even a little bit of modern media understands the difference between what clips show/promise and actually consuming the entire original media.

Come on. Yes we “understand” a clip and when we listen to a short clip we don’t figure that it too has been drastically cut.

I would guess NBC was right to fire an editor who botched a clipping job but how that justifies your claim of ‘doctored’ audio, visual and pictures I’m still at a loss.

Re-read that. You’re not making sense. If you “botch” a clipping job, i.e., clip so that the audio misrepresents what happened … on what planet is that not doctoring the audio?

The time to have done that was when you recklessly made the charges. If you now find you can’t justify your original statement then admit your error.

Nope. We’ve established I’m right about the audio. Do we need to embarrass you further?

What is the message though? Consider my hypothetical news story about Obama attacking Romney.

OK. Consider you’re representation of Obama. The news story highlights the few statements about Romney to highlight this. What if that is not the “larger” new thing in his talk? What if the sniping at Romney is nothing new? Is that news outlet properly reporting by their cutting or not?

Look. What is the job of the news organization? Is it their job to make hypothesis, “Mr Zimmerman is a loon” “Mr Zimmerman is a racist” and cut/paste a pastiche of data to support that or should they not make hypothesis but just lay out a unbiased summary of Mr Zimmerman and what happened. If the latter is what they are to do, they did not do that … and that is why the producer was fired.

Likewise if you want to discuss bias or doctoring or hiding of information as opposed to just trying to get at the truth of what happened that night, then you have to start mapping out now only what information we have but when and how we acquired it.

Interesting. This isn’t what NBC did. It’s why the producer was fired. The failure to do that is what you are also defending. Cognitive dissonance much?

Come on. Yes we “understand” a clip and when we listen to a short clip we don’t figure that it too has been drastically cut.

Actually we are quite aware of this. Never saw a movie that was nothing like its previews? Even though the previews were technically all actual scenes in the movie. Ever see a ‘next week on ______’ followed by a clip that makes it seem like a major character will die or some other huge event will take place only to discover when the actual episode airs nothing like that actually happens.

clearly in news reporting you can’t present fiction but you are presenting stories that are not just recaps of what you would have seen if you stood around consuming the raw material fully (i.e. watching unedited speeches direct on CSPAN).

Re-read that. You’re not making sense. If you “botch” a clipping job, i.e., clip so that the audio misrepresents what happened … on what planet is that not doctoring the audio?

The problem here was not that the clip job was doctored. Zimmerman has a history of calling 911 on black people he sees walking around the complex (and unless I’m mistaken none of his 911 calls ever actually produced an actual criminal or suspect). The problem with this one was that it also presented an additional story, namely that Zimmreman claimed Martin was a suspect because he was black. While perfectly valid for the first story, the ‘hidden’ story should not be created by an editor which is why clipping is an art that requires skill. NBC was therefore right to fire an editor who produced shoddy work. Not the same, though, as saying the editor doctored anything.

Nope. We’ve established I’m right about the audio. Do we need to embarrass you further?

If you made the charge against an actual person rather than some vague boogeyman (‘the media’) you’d be on the line for liable. But since you think you proven yourself right on the audio side perhaps you can now work on explaining why you should not be embarrased for the other wild claims you made.

OK. Consider you’re representation of Obama. The news story highlights the few statements about Romney to highlight this. What if that is not the “larger” new thing in his talk? What if the sniping at Romney is nothing new? Is that news outlet properly reporting by their cutting or not?

Assuming the report doesn’t claim the sniping is new then the story is not false. You are, though, by choosing to consume a 5 minute story versus watching 75 minutes of raw footage choosing to consume what the reporter considers important about those 75 minutes. Perhaps you would have choosen his energy policy proposals and neglected the Romney snipes because you think that’s just ‘horse race’ stuff. That’s you, though. Some people watch the Oscars just to see the clothes the stars are wearing (and E! seems to report on it with just that purpose), others care only about the art of movies. You choose where you consume from, can’t exactly bash an Indian place for not having good pizza on the menu!

Look. What is the job of the news organization? Is it their job to make hypothesis, “Mr Zimmerman is a loon” “Mr Zimmerman is a racist” and cut/paste a pastiche of data to support that or should they not make hypothesis but just lay out a unbiased summary of Mr Zimmerman and what happened.

Which is what happened. Zimmerman called 911 on blacks multiple times. That’s the unbiased fact. From that you can spin many hypothesises. Perhaps he’s a loon, perhaps he’s a racists, or perhaps there’s lots of black criminals in his place, etc. etc. Some of these hypothesises we can work with the information provided by the report, other’s we will need more information which may not be available ever (such as interviewing each person who was the target of his 911 calls….which would be very interesting but quite likely impossible as some of his targets may not have even realized he was calling 911 on them!)

Interesting. This isn’t what NBC did. It’s why the producer was fired. The failure to do that is what you are also defending.

I thought we could move on to your other false claims such as the photo….but anyway I don’t think it should be such an intellectual stretch to comprehend that a person may merit being fired for work that isn’t doctored but is shoddy. In fact shoddy work, while it may merit firing, should not be grouped in the same category as doctored work. But then since NBC fired the person and apologized what is your point then?